When the Giants Come to Town, It's Bye-Bye Baby

03.26.2008
Tim Alderson Should Know the Way to San Jose

In his “state of the team” talk yesterday, Brian Sabean gave the media a barrel of mushy maybes and toothless threats. For example:

On Dan Ortmeier: "I don't know if he's our first baseman, but he deserves to be on the team. We committed to him in the offseason. He struggled learning a new position. [Batting] left-handed has been somewhat of a mystery. Right-handed, he's a threat. Its up to Boch how he mixes and matches and what he does with Richie [Aurilia] on a given day at third or first. As Boch said, I can see Richie starting at one of the corners, I just don't know which one on Opening Day." 

He deserves to be on the team but isn’t necessarily the first baseman? What, then? First-base platooner with Aurilia, even though his strong side is from the right? The sixth outfielder? Chances are Ort won’t have a long career as a starting first baseman, but this is where we’ve arrived, and we shouldn’t be shocked, surprised or disappointed. Quit dithering and give the guy a month or two to play there every day. You have nothing to lose but your, uh, baseball games.  

On Ray Durham: "The more Durham doesn't play, you're going to have to decide how he can start the season.”

This is a veiled threat that Durham better start playing through his ouchies or else…or else…it’s the disabled list for you, mate! Ooh. Scary.

Amid the typical Sabean kerfluffery, which you may peruse here, are a couple useful nuggets: Eugenio Velez is not an adequate third baseman. Either Merkin Valdez or Erick Threets has made the team, the other is fighting for a spot. (“If you just do the math and who's going on the DL and who's under contract, one of those guys is definitely going to make it.”)

But the most interesting news of the day comes from the milb.com site: top prospect Tim Alderson is starting the year in high-A San Jose. He’s less than a year removed from his high school graduation; it’s a rare jump for such a young guy. It’s also a year faster than Matt Cain, who didn’t get to High-A ball until he was 19.

It’s also a gamble. The Giants have asked him to pitch out of the windup, something he didn’t do in high school. He’ll re-learn it on the fly, against much older competition, in a notorious hitter-friendly league. The risk is high: a young pitcher getting hammered is apt to make mechanical changes, even subconsciously. Add the pressure Alderson will feel as a first-time pro, and he might try to pitch through any pain or discomfort stemming from his new mechanics. The Giants had better monitor him closely to make sure he doesn’t panic or cut corners, either mentally or physically.



Also on the Network:



[March 26, 2008 8:27 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Johnny Disaster said

The whole Alderson thing is cementing my new belief that the Giant's have no clue how to develop young pitchers (other than by drafting young, high-upside talent). Their lack of positional development is well chronicled, but I always told myself they knew what to do with young arms.
Also, on a side note, perhaps you could consider using kerfufflery rather than kerfluffery. I like the sound of it and had an inappropriate visual image of 'kerfluffery'...

[March 26, 2008 11:49 PM]  |  link  |  reply
ELM said

>my new belief that the Giant's have no clue how to develop young pitchers

And where does this belief come from? I'm not arguing (yet), but I'd like to know more.

[March 27, 2008 1:23 PM]  |  link  |  reply
johnP said

Giants lost to the AAA club yesterday. That would be acceptable, if the G-men were a normal team. They can be forgiven for slacking off... But this year (as opposed to previous years) - they are Gamers. They were playing all out. For them, beating the AAA team was *everything*. I guess that means they tried their best, but couldn't. Does that mean they suck?

[March 27, 2008 2:01 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Johnny Disaster said

Well, I'd like to start by apologizing for the length of this reply...
Admittedly I have come to it in the absence of any, you know, 'facts' or 'research'... and perhaps am letting current personal job-related ennui color my thinking. I've always agreed with the orthodoxy that the Giants were poor at developing position players and good at developing pitching. And certainly the Caincecum twins are exhibit A in that (although they don't have a long track record), but the evolution of my nascent negativity is this:
While the Giants' pitchers seem to love Rags, their greatest successes as a staff came with relatively veteran squads, so this winter I started wondering maybe his strength is getting the most out of established pitchers rather than teaching youngsters how to pitch. Then a couple of weeks ago on Giants Jottings (great spring training blog, lots of photos) I read an offhand comment by Giantfan9 to the effect that it was the first time he had seen Righetti actually physically demonstrate something. Looking at the bullpen I think there's a lot of potential, but not yet performance (getting Scott Munter to control his sinker would have forever scuttled my argument). And reading about Nathan's contract extension got me thinking about pitchers who really blossomed after leaving the organization (Nathan, Liriano, Accardo - small sample size, I know). So I started wondering bitterly if maybe the scouting was ahead of the coaching... and now I've got you considering the logic of my irrational proclamations. Sorry.